Gun control has been a contentious issue in American politics for some time. Government regulation of guns has long affected the gun industry and has raised issues of how government action can add to costs without assuring greater safety. Recently, several cities have undertaken a new approach by suing gun manufacturers for the way their product is used, extending the idea of product liability in the same way earlier litigation did with the tobacco industry. The cities want the manufacturers to reimburse them for health care costs associated with shootings. This has generated considerable controversy. Those opposed to gun regulations are of course against this sort of litigation, but even many supporters of gun control find that this is the wrong method for achieving their ends and that such a substitution of the judicial power for legislative action creates more problems than it would solve and could lead to even more litigation against other products. The process is also expensive and adds to the cost of products for the consumer. This sort of litigation also alters the relationship between business and government in ways that could lead to excessive regulation in the future.
The subject is gun control, and government regulation centering on the way cities, states, and federal lawmakers are attempting to regulate the purchase and use of guns today. The business community has been held more and more responsible for a wide variety of social problems in recent years, with attempts to make them responsible for the proper use of legal products under a variety of creative legal doctrines. We have seen this with the tobacco lawsuits which held that even though this is a legal product and even though smokers were warned, the cigarette companies are responsible for health costs incurred by cities and states because some citizens have exercised their right of choice and become smokers. This doctrine is now being turned toward the ...